2008 Woodie Awards
LETTERS
Issue date: 4/18/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
"The Sixties"
Dear Sir:
I have just read Rabbi Dr. Irving Greenberg's "Yeshiva in the Sixties"; and, much as forensic altercation runs counter to my grain and instincts, I am constrained, almost in sheer self-defense, to respond. I shall not comment in depth upon the wide range of issues relating to Dr. Greenberg's "spiritual odyssey" and his current haven. I shall focus, instead, upon factual errors, some trivial, others significant, which permeate the piece, with particular attention to the numerous inaccuracies and gross misrepresentations concerning myself.
Dr. Greenberg identifies me as part of a clique of "newcomers" who sought to "improve the yeshiva, not just the College." I, indeed, had this aim in mind. However, I was by no means a "newcomer," having been affiliated with YU since 1949 - first, as a talmid, later, as an assistant to the Rav, and, from 1961, as head of the resuscitated kollel, and, finally, from 1963, as a maggid shiur. Secondly, I was not brought to the College to teach English literature significantly (as I had done at Stern); and, most important, the improvement I sought was hardly in the direction and by many of the means enumerated. I never acted to have all the shiurim switched from Yiddish to English; the notion that "relevance" should be a prime condition in the selection of a masekhta, I regarded, then as now, as antithetical to the ideal of Torah lishmah; and the implication that I joined in advocating "less pilpul more bekiyut" is pure fantasy. So is the assertion that meetings to thrash out such an agenda "were held mostly in the apartments of the Liebmans and the Lichtensteins at 17 Fort George Hill" - and this, not only because neither family resided at that address, or because, while we were genuinely friendly with the Liebmans, our social relations with the Greenbergs were relatively marginal, but inasmuch as our involvement in the process under consideration was far from what has been suggestively implied. We certainly were involved in serious discussion but were hardly privy to the semi-revolutionary ferment conjured up by Dr. Greenberg's recollections.
With respect to the conclaves organized by David Hartman in the Laurentians, they were indeed often heady and stimulating, but not as focused upon the Shoah as implied; and the notion that Emil Fackenheim needed to be "ignited" on the subject by Dr. Greenberg's "burning interest" is simply preposterous. Most egregious, however, is the account of the gerut cited. Ma'asseh shehayah kakh hayah. The Conservative member of the bet din, far from being a shomer mitzvah, wavererd, by his own account, between atheism, agnosticism, and faith, and certainly did not maintain a Halakhic commitment. When some of the Orthodox rabbis among us realized what was transpiring, we consulted briefly and decided to have three of us engage the ger in an impromptu discussion of Halakhah, in the hope of eliciting a kabbalat ol mizvot, which in the opinion of those rishonim who held that only this phase required a bet din, could salvage the process. I recall the incident vividly, including being drawn into the dancing, with great ambivalence, in order not to embarrass the ger. I also recall that, as I realized in which direction the wind was blowing, the event - and not a presumed "drift to the right" - drove me into disaffection for the whole enterprise. (Incidentally, the protagonist subsequently underwent a fully Orthodox conversion in Israel.)
My sharpest revulsion, however, is reserved for Dr. Greenberg's account regarding the contretemps over his interview and my response to it. I shall not challenge his claim that my "tolerances for exploration" are too constricted, as they do, indeed, fall far short of his. I readily concede a major concern with "preserving Judaism" and admit to the conviction that if we are to strive, as we should, for "affirming it and its sovereignty in modern culture," we must be certain that what is being affirmed is what has, in its integrity, been authentically preserved. What riles me is the account of "the furor," and, particularly, the remarks concerning the Rav. Dr. Greenberg habitually asserts that the Rav - or, for that matter, smallfry fish like myself - fundamentally agreed with many of his cherished views regarding modernity et al but lacked the courage to assert them, to walk through the doors the Rav had himself opened. This ploy is doubly effective. At one fell swoop, it abducts a giant from a rival camp to one's own; and, secondly, it enables one to bask in the contemplated glory of his own integrity and strength, while attributing a "failure of nerve" to others. It is, however, unabashedly, a blatant example of what Steven Schwarzschild called "imperialism of the soul." The thought that refusal to ride the crest of the Zeitgeist may be wholly principled rather than a reflection of temerity, often refuses to penetrate.
In this case, there is also icing on the cake: a self-image which includes not only being a "profile in courage" but suffering the status of a persecuted nirdaf as well. Dr. Greenberg depicts a scenario which includes a political cabal in opposition to him, which proceeded to enlist me to "refute" him. This is, to the best of my recollection, patently erroneous. I wrote in response to provocative statements, and not under pressure. As to the contention that I had largely agreed with his positions but had only regretted the tone of the interview, this is an unkind and ungrateful cut. In the desire to be generous, I suggested that perhaps the interview did not quite reflect Dr. Greenberg's truly more traditional views, which had somehow become skewed in a wide-ranging but imprecise discourse. At the time, Dr. Greenberg, in turn, assented that there was some truth to this conjecture. Now, however, he informs us that this concession was made "disingenuously" - confirming, that, from the ideological standpoint of his opponents, the original criticism was indeed warranted. I suggest that anyone who has the patience and the interest read the original exchange and judge the tone and the substance of my remarks for himself.
One could comment upon the article further. I, for one, find the total omission of any reference to Israel in a survey of the sixties, startling. I also take issue with the implication that, as regards the Shoah, "Orthodoxy did not have all the answers," but supposed that it did, while Dr. Greenberg did indeed. The Rav's Orthodoxy preached that, with respect to such issues, a Jew needed to strive to sustain his covenantal commitment in the face of the questions, rather than pretend to have answers. These salient points are not to my present purpose, however. Much water has passed under the bridge since those heady sixties. Dr. Greenberg has gone on to carve out a prominent career in the field of Jewish public service, even as he has adopted and advanced views regarding such crucial issues as the covenant and Christianity which the traditional Torah world has categorically rejected. The mutual disaffection which has regrettably ensued may, in the eyes of some, render much of this discussion irrelevant. Nevertheless, even as a matter of historical interest, it is important to keep the record straight.
Respectfully,
Aharon Lichtenstein
Jerusalem
[Ed: Rav Lichtenstein is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Alon Shevut, Israel, and is a Rosh Yeshiva at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary where he lectures at Yeshiva's Gruss Institute.]
Dear Sir:
R. Irving Greenberg's memoir is remarkable for avoiding any real discussion of Israel and Zionism during the time he spent there. As a student at YU between 1964-1969, my memories are of very lively but admittedly small Zionist groups (Bnei Akiva and Betar), conflict with administration over Yom HaAtzmaut celebrations and most notably, the Lord Caradon affair.
That the Rav had to intervene in the last-mentioned item and then felt obliged to go on campus radio, was no small matter. R. Yitz has some 'holes' that need mending.
Yisrael Medad (Winkelman)
Israel
*******
BMP Blues
Dear Sir:
It's a shame that Eric Adelman decided to fill his article "BMP: The B Stands for B'Dieved" with so much of his own narrow-minded bitterness towards the program. He did address some problems with BMP which I believe would have been taken much more seriously if he hadn't completely discarded the program's many strong points. The attendance at seder and the atmosphere in the Beit Midrash are issues that I agree should definitely be dealt with. However, by saying that "anybody who claims that [BMP] should be an l'chatchila choice is fooling nobody but themselves," he shows that his feelings are motivated by anger and resentment and not by a desire to correct certain flaws that exist in BMP.
I am a former MYP student currently in my first semester in BMP in Rabbi Rosner's shiur. While I am not saying whether or not BMP is the optimal choice for me, I have been able to see over the past two months that there are many wonderful features of BMP which make it a l'chatchila choice for many among YU's diverse student body. The close attention of the Rabbeim in the smaller shiurim can be very helpful for a student looking for a kesher with his Rebbi. The more interactive approach to shiur also can help keep a boy interested on days when his concentration is lacking. A student may want to learn halacha and machshava as well as gemara in shiur, and BMP provides that option.
While Mr. Adelman did point out some problems in BMP which should be addressed, many of his complaints about the program are unfounded and off base. While it may be true that there are many students who are not as serious as those in MYP, most of these students realize the levels they are on, and are enrolled in BMP to try to grow to a higher level. If they didn't, they could either go to IBC, where there is much less time devoted to shiur, or MYP, where their attendance would be loosely monitored, if at all.
His belief that seder is underemphasized in BMP is just wrong. While he can not force students to come to seder, my Rebbi constantly mentions the importance of seder in shiur. He also does his best to be there with his talmidim during seder and note those who are not attending so as to speak to them about it later. This attention is exponentially more than that of MYP, where it is assumed that the students will always attend seder without any prodding. We are dealing with college-age students, and while the importance of seder must be constantly emphasized, the decision whether or not to attend will always ultimately fall on the individual student.
The issue of the lesser amount of time for learning in BMP versus MYP was also dealt with narrowly by Mr. Adelman. The difference in times is not two hours as he suggested, but closer to one because of the lunch break incorporated into the MYP schedule. Clearly, the value of an extra hour of learning a day is immeasurable, but other factors also come into play. Many students are unable to be involved in Torah studies until 2:45 PM and still succeed in their academic studies (as well as possibly incorporating a night seder into their schedule). Granted, the ideal is to learn Torah as much as possible, but all YU students have made a conscious decision to spend much of their time pursuing a secular education, and it therefore is important for them to make sure to leave themselves enough time to succeed in both Torah and secular studies. I have unfortunately seen many MYP students (myself included) neglect their Torah studies for some time when the pressures of school increased! A more reasonable schedule is necessary for some to maintain success in both areas.
I want to clarify that I am certainly not writing this letter to convince anyone to switch from MYP to BMP. If one has found success in MYP, then he is taking advantage of the amazing ability to spend a large portion of his day learning Torah from some of the greatest Talmidei Chachamim in the world. I am writing to emphasize the many attributes of BMP. I don't want any student who feels he is able to switch from IBC to BMP to think that it is not worth it because BMP is not a serious program. I don't want any student who legitimately feels that MYP is too demanding for him to feel that he has no options because he has heard that BMP is not a l'chatchila option.
Shlomo Balsam
SSSB '05
*********
Siyum Reflections
Dear Sir:
The first of the two final letters by Mr. Smiles and Mr. Lowi on the issue of the DafYomi Siyum HaShas expresses much of what I expressed in my own commentary on that event.
Mr Smiles: "Why doesn't Rav Matisyahu Solomon of Lakewood come to Yeshiva at least once a year, or why doesn't Yeshiva sponsor a Shabbat at Lakewood experience? Why not have an Agudah shabbaton once a year?"
The last letter by Mr. Lowi, I think misses the valid points made by the original column and basically states that, "It's their party and they can do what they want." That is true but that doesn't mean that the columnist wasn't accurate in his perceptions.
Agudah does not live up to its stated image of being an umbrella for all Torah observers. It only pays lip service to it and denies YU Rosh Yeshiva the opportunity to address the vast audience which included many YU Alumni. By merely "showcasing" a couple of YU Rosh Yeshivas at the back of the dais one cannot claim pluralism. To deny them the lectern is to deny the validity of their Hashkafos. There is no sense of universal Orthodox Elu v'Elu. There is only a partial sense of it. The display of inclusiveness precludes any MO type Hashkafos. The message was clear: "Litvishe Yeshivos, OK... Chasidim, OK... TIDE OK... Torah u-Madda. Pasul! "OK, we'll let you come, we'll even let you sit at the table, but that's it".
As for criticism by Mr. Lowi of the original columnist of over-emphasis on the holocaust, once again the letter writer misses the point. His statement that there is a "lack of understanding by young people today to understand what was lost" is inappropriate with respect to the Siyum. This event was not about what was lost, but what has been accomplished in our time.
I believe that a Siyum HaShas which is an event of Simcha should not be co-mingled with a tragedy like the Holocaust. It would have been one thing to mention it in passing briefly ala the breaking of a glass after a Chupah reminding us of the Churban Bais HaMikdash. But dedicating the entire event as a memorial and devoting an entire speech to it by one of the main speakers is akin to having someone making a lengthy speech about the Churban Bais HaMikdash at a wedding. Both are inappropriate.
No one is more sensitive to the Holocaust than I am. My parents were both survivors. To me the lack of uniting with the rest of Klal Yisrael, observant or not, on this issue and instead choosing your own venue for a Zikaron is divisive rather than uniting. I have no idea why Gedloim in the seventies were Maskim to dedicate a Simcha of massive proportions to one of the saddest events in Jewish history except perhaps they felt the need to do something in light of the legitimate criticism they were getting from Frum holocaust survivors in their midst for never addressing the issue or having any public event to memorialize the holocaust. The criticism was correct. The response was not.
Others may disagree but I remain unconvinced. In my humble opinion the Holocaust as a theme is as inappropriate at a Siyum HaShas as it is at a wedding.
Rabbi Harry Maryles
Hebrew Theological College '72.
Chicago, Illinois
Dear Sir:
Thank you to Etan Bednarsh for putting into words troubling thoughts that I too felt as I attended a siyum in Jerusalem a month ago. I too searched for "my gedolim" on the dais, only to be frustrated at their absence. I too wondered at the preponderance of Holocaust speeches, and the absence - complete absence - of any mention of over 1000 Jews being killed in the much more recent Arab assault of the past few years, nor of 8000 Jews about to be thrown out of their homes. The siyum here could have been a true unifying moment of joy, and there were joyful moments of singing and dancing. But as Mr. Bednarsh points out, the organizers, both here, and apparently in America, have a long way to go before the achieve true unity at their siyum. My hope is that constructive criticism such as Mr. Bednarsh's will in fact be read, and internalized, and that we will see an improvement at the end of the current cycle in seven years.
Samuel P. Zimmerman
Nof Ayalon, Israel
YC '81, BRGS RIETS '84
*******
The Pope
Dear Sir:
As the son of one Holocaust survivor, and as someone raised in an Orthodox Jewish household, it would have seemed inconceivable that I would one day truly mourn the passing of a Pope. That day came yesterday. The courage and leadership that Pope John Paul II displayed in so many aspects of his tenure were most memorable to me in his brave steps toward an ultimate reconciliation and forgiveness to the Jewish people. I will never forget the evening news, watching him arrive on the tarmac in Israel, and hearing the Israeli military orchestra strike up the Vatican anthem and the Hatikva; tears welled in my eyes. If even some of the world's political leaders displayed a fraction of his dedication to noble values, we would live in a much better world.
Allen Roth
YH '68, YC '72
********
Disengagement and Halakha
Dear Sir:
In respect to the assertions of Rabbis Blau, Lamm and Charlop that their panel dealt with only halakhic issues; I find it difficult to understand their conclusions regarding disobeying orders. The only relevant halakhic aspects relating to IDF service and orders per se would be that of Milhemet Mitzvah or Milhemet Reshut. Milhemet Reshut does not apply today; thus IDF service constitutes service in an army engaged in Milhemet Mitzvah. As such this mitzvah is incumbent upon every Jew - irrespective of residence in Israel or not. However, instead of issuing a call to their students to immediately join the IDF for a term of service and fulfill this mitzvah, the above Rabbis will dictate to those who have already done so what our religious obligations are.
My only conclusion can be that they view the issue of IDF service as not one of a Milhememt Mitzva but rather simply the obligation of an Israeli citizen with no halakhic ramifications to the service per se. As such, orders received within the context of IDF service need to be examined under Israeli Law and Israeli Military Law. Both REQUIRE a soldier to disobey a blatantly illegal order. It is not an issue of "taste".
Most IDF soldiers are not volunteers - they are drafted and deprived of various constitutional rights during their army service. As such the sensitivity to illegal orders needs to be even higher than in a paid "professional" army, and the orders need to balance out the constitutional liberties of which the soldier is deprived. Defense of the land might be a worthy enough cause under Israel's Basic Laws to justify the deprivation of civil rights of the soldier. Expulsion of residents from their homes would best be left to professional or international bodies, rather than drafted soldiers. It is the forcing of these soldiers to engage in this act that will destroy the army from within - not disobeying orders.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that the current evacuation law violates many more area of halakha, beyond that or Yishuv Haaretz and Lo T'chanem. These areas of halakha were not examined by the panel, which focused entirely on the issue of Yishuv Haaretz and Lo T'Chanem. A Rosh Kollel at the Kollel in K'far Darom enumerated a list of at least 18 additional Torah commandments that the Evacuation Law violates beyond the above two. Furthermore, the evacuation law violates significant civil rights of the residents, businesses and institutions to be expelled (if one were to simply accept the law as Dina D'Malchuta Dina). Any soldier with a Jewish - or even simply human - conscience will avoid being involved in this endeavor.
I would not venture to engage the above Rabbis - whom I would honor with the title Rebbe - in a halakhic debate. However, the halakhic and legal issues at hand are certainly more complicated than the limited perspective presented at the panel discussion. Personally, I have notified my reserve unit (as well as IDF human resources and the chief of staff's office) that I will NOT be reporting for scheduled reserve duty after Pesach, in light of many of the issues mentioned above. I am willing to accept the ramifications of my action. It is probably the most Jewish Zionist act I have undertaken since the date of my aliyah. I sincerely hope (and believe) that there are thousands of other citizens such as myself who will do what is necessary to save the IDF from itself and from the political echelons that have sullied its mission - the defense of the land and it's inhabitants (also explicitly noted in Israeli law).
Avraham Ben-Tzvi (Husarsky)
YC 1992; BA Economics
Bachelor of Law (Candidate) Sha'arei Mishpat College of Law
Dear Sir:
Rabbis Lamm, Charlop, and Blau are entitled to their opinion, a da'at yahid [minority opinion]. However, it is wrong for Rabbi Blau to imply that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik ZT"L would have agreed with him. Having been privileged to know the Rav ZT"L, I sincerely believe that he would have campaigned forcefully and effectively against the uprooting of Jews from their homes in Eretz Yisrael. "Chaval Al DeAvdin VeLo Mishtakchin." "Zechuso Yagen Aleinu VeAl Kal Yisrael."
Respectfully,
Avraham Yaakov Rokach
Chicago, IL
Dear Sir:
Arutz Sheva published a report of a panel discussion held at Yeshiva University concerning the halakhic aspects of the intended giveaway of Jewish Land to the PLO. Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, Chancellor of the university, propounded the halakhic view that the law of the land must be obeyed, even if we disagree with it. Thus he, and his esteemed associates, clearly stated that halakha requires police and soldiers to follow orders to throw Jews out of their homes, and that the evacuees themselves must comply with their expulsion.
Rabbi Lamm explained that rabbis are not qualified to make military or political decisions, and thus his position was based purely on halakha. He mentioned that King Solomon gave Jewish land to Hiram as a reward for his help in supplying materials to build the Temple. Thus a King has the right to give away Jewish land as he wishes.
While Rabbi Lamm may well have good intentions, and while he made a noble effort to find Jewish sources to justify his opinion, clearly he is mistaken. Even were Ariel Sharon King of Israel (and maybe he even thinks that he is), that does not give him the right to give away Jewish Land to our enemies. Hiram was not an enemy of the Jewish people. One needn't be a military expert nor a political insider to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that retreating from an enemy who seeks your destruction, who is currently attacking your civilian population, and who has not surrendered to you, will not improve the security of the country. On the contrary. We have clear evidence from military and political leaders that surrendering Gaza to the PLO will endanger Israel.
While it certainly is true that we must obey the law of the Land, that mitzvah is not an absolute, above all other mitzvoth. There are times when the law of the Land contravenes Torah Law and even democracy. This dastardly expulsion plan was not made in a democratic fashion. It was arbitrarily concocted by our prime minister, in contravention of the will of his own party and the platform upon which he was elected. It was railroaded through the government and the Knesset by firing ministers and bribing others. Were Rabbi Lamm a little more sensitive to the real issues we are facing here he would not have made some of the comments which implied that Jews who live in Judea Samaria and Gaza are defying their own government by making the mitzvah to settle the Land more important than life itself. First of all it was the government of Israel who encouraged Jews to live in these areas. Second, it is a mitzvah to fight to keep the Land which is already under our possession!
Thirdly whatever danger might exist by virtue of the fact that Jews live in Gaza, is infinitely less than the danger which will face the entire country were they not living there.
Like it or not we are, indeed, in a state of war with the PLO. No general, in the history of warfare, ever waged a war by submitting to a less powerful enemy. One needn't be a rabbi or a general to know, without a doubt, that the only way to deal with the likes of the PLO is to completely destroy them. That is a halakhic opinion which would take courage for any rabbi to issue, but it is Jewish Law.
Gary M. Cooperberg
Kiryat Arba, Israel
[Editor's Note: Arutz Sheva (www.israelnatioanalnews.com) ran a story using The Commentator's reporting about the "Disengagement and Halakha" forum sponsored by the Israel Club last month. However, rather than reprint the article in its entirety, Arutz Sheva chose to create their own article using The Commentator's reporting. Though The Commentator was appropriately credited with original reporting, we believe the format in which the article appeared distorted accurate coverage of the event.]
Schiavo's Will
Dear Sir:
In his article entitled, "Just Write a Will, Will Ya?" Mr. Menachem Wecker discussed several points that are factually and medically incorrect, while raising other issues that I found to be philosophically inappropriate. I am saddened to realize that a student of Yeshiva University would succumb so readily to the pressures and fallacies of the Western culture and discard the value that each soul carries before G-d.
Mr. Wecker states in the beginning of his article, a "woman who has been dead for 15 years" and goes on to maintain that in this case, we are keeping the "dead 'alive'" through a feeding tube. These comments destroy the complete credibility of his article, because Terry Schiavo, in her persistent vegetative state, was not dead, medically or religiously. Her heart and other organs were physiologically independent and in perfect working condition. Mrs. Schiavo was diagnosed as having brain damage not being brain dead.
Mr. Wecker tactfully continues by taking the liberty of stating Schiavo is living uselessly at taxpayer's expenses. This comment brings back the old Spartan ideal of leaving the old and the sickly - the worthless people- on mountain tops to die, so they will not become an affliction on the "healthy" and "normal" community. Even worse, this reawakens the notion brought on by Adolph Hitler, that the world must be rid of all imperfection.
I believe the validity of this article is shaken by such comments posited by Mr. Wecker as, "it is pointless to keep someone alive if they cannot perform such basic functions in life as seeing, hearing and most importantly, feeling", but then goes on to say that we should not force people to remain alive if they are in "intense pain, as they usually are". This is a clear contradiction, as Mr. Wecker stated in previous paragraphs, "Schiavo and people in her situation don't feel pain". Please, Mr. Wecker, if you desire to have your article taken seriously, you must present cogent arguments and positions that are maintained consistently.
Mr. Wecker writes that he personally cannot think of anything more unpleasant than living in a persistent vegetative state. The point he makes of how we react to our given circumstances, is subtle and extremely dangerous. I will not argue that life in a vegetative state is pleasant, but the idea of only living or acting when things are pleasurable is a very modern idea, only recently adopted by Western Culture. Life is not always what we want or hope for. Triumph in life has to do with our attitude and actions toward what our lot in life is. The Schindlers, Mrs. Schiavo's parents, took this tragic situation and attempted to move on in the best way they knew how, by guarding and caring for what they believe was their precious gift- their daughter.
The main issue boils down to one fundamental question. When have we, as human beings, received the right and privilege to establish someone's intrinsic worth? After all, if we agree to follow Mr. Wecker's later comment that we have to trust in G-d and that He will care for our family and loved ones; we should trust Him to decide when Mrs. Schiavo and anyone in any sort of terminal illness or vegetative state should die. As the human race, we have no right to decide when a life is inconvenient or burdensome. Maybe we need to do some serious introspection at this time and decide what it is about people with developmental, cognitive and physical disabilities that make us so uncomfortable, to the point that we could not only murder them but believe we are justified in doing so. Starvation, as in Mrs. Schiavo's case, was complete and total murder.
As human beings, I believe we need to realize time is not an entity of its own, but a creation formed and continuously maintained by an Omnipotent and Infinite Creator. We are, in fact, not in control of our ultimate destiny, and we will one day have to answer to a higher Being. It is time we as Jews removed the pervasive and insidious Western ideologies from our minds and hearts. These ideals have saturated our beliefs to such an extent that we have lost the true meaning and inherent value of life. Our worth is not defined by our physical output; one can never know the true extent of their importance in both the physical and spiritual worlds. It is our faith that teaches us that all souls have infinite value before G-d.
Alana Tinman
SCW '06
Dear Sir:
I have just read Rabbi Dr. Irving Greenberg's "Yeshiva in the Sixties"; and, much as forensic altercation runs counter to my grain and instincts, I am constrained, almost in sheer self-defense, to respond. I shall not comment in depth upon the wide range of issues relating to Dr. Greenberg's "spiritual odyssey" and his current haven. I shall focus, instead, upon factual errors, some trivial, others significant, which permeate the piece, with particular attention to the numerous inaccuracies and gross misrepresentations concerning myself.
Dr. Greenberg identifies me as part of a clique of "newcomers" who sought to "improve the yeshiva, not just the College." I, indeed, had this aim in mind. However, I was by no means a "newcomer," having been affiliated with YU since 1949 - first, as a talmid, later, as an assistant to the Rav, and, from 1961, as head of the resuscitated kollel, and, finally, from 1963, as a maggid shiur. Secondly, I was not brought to the College to teach English literature significantly (as I had done at Stern); and, most important, the improvement I sought was hardly in the direction and by many of the means enumerated. I never acted to have all the shiurim switched from Yiddish to English; the notion that "relevance" should be a prime condition in the selection of a masekhta, I regarded, then as now, as antithetical to the ideal of Torah lishmah; and the implication that I joined in advocating "less pilpul more bekiyut" is pure fantasy. So is the assertion that meetings to thrash out such an agenda "were held mostly in the apartments of the Liebmans and the Lichtensteins at 17 Fort George Hill" - and this, not only because neither family resided at that address, or because, while we were genuinely friendly with the Liebmans, our social relations with the Greenbergs were relatively marginal, but inasmuch as our involvement in the process under consideration was far from what has been suggestively implied. We certainly were involved in serious discussion but were hardly privy to the semi-revolutionary ferment conjured up by Dr. Greenberg's recollections.
With respect to the conclaves organized by David Hartman in the Laurentians, they were indeed often heady and stimulating, but not as focused upon the Shoah as implied; and the notion that Emil Fackenheim needed to be "ignited" on the subject by Dr. Greenberg's "burning interest" is simply preposterous. Most egregious, however, is the account of the gerut cited. Ma'asseh shehayah kakh hayah. The Conservative member of the bet din, far from being a shomer mitzvah, wavererd, by his own account, between atheism, agnosticism, and faith, and certainly did not maintain a Halakhic commitment. When some of the Orthodox rabbis among us realized what was transpiring, we consulted briefly and decided to have three of us engage the ger in an impromptu discussion of Halakhah, in the hope of eliciting a kabbalat ol mizvot, which in the opinion of those rishonim who held that only this phase required a bet din, could salvage the process. I recall the incident vividly, including being drawn into the dancing, with great ambivalence, in order not to embarrass the ger. I also recall that, as I realized in which direction the wind was blowing, the event - and not a presumed "drift to the right" - drove me into disaffection for the whole enterprise. (Incidentally, the protagonist subsequently underwent a fully Orthodox conversion in Israel.)
My sharpest revulsion, however, is reserved for Dr. Greenberg's account regarding the contretemps over his interview and my response to it. I shall not challenge his claim that my "tolerances for exploration" are too constricted, as they do, indeed, fall far short of his. I readily concede a major concern with "preserving Judaism" and admit to the conviction that if we are to strive, as we should, for "affirming it and its sovereignty in modern culture," we must be certain that what is being affirmed is what has, in its integrity, been authentically preserved. What riles me is the account of "the furor," and, particularly, the remarks concerning the Rav. Dr. Greenberg habitually asserts that the Rav - or, for that matter, smallfry fish like myself - fundamentally agreed with many of his cherished views regarding modernity et al but lacked the courage to assert them, to walk through the doors the Rav had himself opened. This ploy is doubly effective. At one fell swoop, it abducts a giant from a rival camp to one's own; and, secondly, it enables one to bask in the contemplated glory of his own integrity and strength, while attributing a "failure of nerve" to others. It is, however, unabashedly, a blatant example of what Steven Schwarzschild called "imperialism of the soul." The thought that refusal to ride the crest of the Zeitgeist may be wholly principled rather than a reflection of temerity, often refuses to penetrate.
In this case, there is also icing on the cake: a self-image which includes not only being a "profile in courage" but suffering the status of a persecuted nirdaf as well. Dr. Greenberg depicts a scenario which includes a political cabal in opposition to him, which proceeded to enlist me to "refute" him. This is, to the best of my recollection, patently erroneous. I wrote in response to provocative statements, and not under pressure. As to the contention that I had largely agreed with his positions but had only regretted the tone of the interview, this is an unkind and ungrateful cut. In the desire to be generous, I suggested that perhaps the interview did not quite reflect Dr. Greenberg's truly more traditional views, which had somehow become skewed in a wide-ranging but imprecise discourse. At the time, Dr. Greenberg, in turn, assented that there was some truth to this conjecture. Now, however, he informs us that this concession was made "disingenuously" - confirming, that, from the ideological standpoint of his opponents, the original criticism was indeed warranted. I suggest that anyone who has the patience and the interest read the original exchange and judge the tone and the substance of my remarks for himself.
One could comment upon the article further. I, for one, find the total omission of any reference to Israel in a survey of the sixties, startling. I also take issue with the implication that, as regards the Shoah, "Orthodoxy did not have all the answers," but supposed that it did, while Dr. Greenberg did indeed. The Rav's Orthodoxy preached that, with respect to such issues, a Jew needed to strive to sustain his covenantal commitment in the face of the questions, rather than pretend to have answers. These salient points are not to my present purpose, however. Much water has passed under the bridge since those heady sixties. Dr. Greenberg has gone on to carve out a prominent career in the field of Jewish public service, even as he has adopted and advanced views regarding such crucial issues as the covenant and Christianity which the traditional Torah world has categorically rejected. The mutual disaffection which has regrettably ensued may, in the eyes of some, render much of this discussion irrelevant. Nevertheless, even as a matter of historical interest, it is important to keep the record straight.
Respectfully,
Aharon Lichtenstein
Jerusalem
[Ed: Rav Lichtenstein is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Alon Shevut, Israel, and is a Rosh Yeshiva at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary where he lectures at Yeshiva's Gruss Institute.]
Dear Sir:
R. Irving Greenberg's memoir is remarkable for avoiding any real discussion of Israel and Zionism during the time he spent there. As a student at YU between 1964-1969, my memories are of very lively but admittedly small Zionist groups (Bnei Akiva and Betar), conflict with administration over Yom HaAtzmaut celebrations and most notably, the Lord Caradon affair.
That the Rav had to intervene in the last-mentioned item and then felt obliged to go on campus radio, was no small matter. R. Yitz has some 'holes' that need mending.
Yisrael Medad (Winkelman)
Israel
*******
BMP Blues
Dear Sir:
It's a shame that Eric Adelman decided to fill his article "BMP: The B Stands for B'Dieved" with so much of his own narrow-minded bitterness towards the program. He did address some problems with BMP which I believe would have been taken much more seriously if he hadn't completely discarded the program's many strong points. The attendance at seder and the atmosphere in the Beit Midrash are issues that I agree should definitely be dealt with. However, by saying that "anybody who claims that [BMP] should be an l'chatchila choice is fooling nobody but themselves," he shows that his feelings are motivated by anger and resentment and not by a desire to correct certain flaws that exist in BMP.
I am a former MYP student currently in my first semester in BMP in Rabbi Rosner's shiur. While I am not saying whether or not BMP is the optimal choice for me, I have been able to see over the past two months that there are many wonderful features of BMP which make it a l'chatchila choice for many among YU's diverse student body. The close attention of the Rabbeim in the smaller shiurim can be very helpful for a student looking for a kesher with his Rebbi. The more interactive approach to shiur also can help keep a boy interested on days when his concentration is lacking. A student may want to learn halacha and machshava as well as gemara in shiur, and BMP provides that option.
While Mr. Adelman did point out some problems in BMP which should be addressed, many of his complaints about the program are unfounded and off base. While it may be true that there are many students who are not as serious as those in MYP, most of these students realize the levels they are on, and are enrolled in BMP to try to grow to a higher level. If they didn't, they could either go to IBC, where there is much less time devoted to shiur, or MYP, where their attendance would be loosely monitored, if at all.
His belief that seder is underemphasized in BMP is just wrong. While he can not force students to come to seder, my Rebbi constantly mentions the importance of seder in shiur. He also does his best to be there with his talmidim during seder and note those who are not attending so as to speak to them about it later. This attention is exponentially more than that of MYP, where it is assumed that the students will always attend seder without any prodding. We are dealing with college-age students, and while the importance of seder must be constantly emphasized, the decision whether or not to attend will always ultimately fall on the individual student.
The issue of the lesser amount of time for learning in BMP versus MYP was also dealt with narrowly by Mr. Adelman. The difference in times is not two hours as he suggested, but closer to one because of the lunch break incorporated into the MYP schedule. Clearly, the value of an extra hour of learning a day is immeasurable, but other factors also come into play. Many students are unable to be involved in Torah studies until 2:45 PM and still succeed in their academic studies (as well as possibly incorporating a night seder into their schedule). Granted, the ideal is to learn Torah as much as possible, but all YU students have made a conscious decision to spend much of their time pursuing a secular education, and it therefore is important for them to make sure to leave themselves enough time to succeed in both Torah and secular studies. I have unfortunately seen many MYP students (myself included) neglect their Torah studies for some time when the pressures of school increased! A more reasonable schedule is necessary for some to maintain success in both areas.
I want to clarify that I am certainly not writing this letter to convince anyone to switch from MYP to BMP. If one has found success in MYP, then he is taking advantage of the amazing ability to spend a large portion of his day learning Torah from some of the greatest Talmidei Chachamim in the world. I am writing to emphasize the many attributes of BMP. I don't want any student who feels he is able to switch from IBC to BMP to think that it is not worth it because BMP is not a serious program. I don't want any student who legitimately feels that MYP is too demanding for him to feel that he has no options because he has heard that BMP is not a l'chatchila option.
Shlomo Balsam
SSSB '05
*********
Siyum Reflections
Dear Sir:
The first of the two final letters by Mr. Smiles and Mr. Lowi on the issue of the DafYomi Siyum HaShas expresses much of what I expressed in my own commentary on that event.
Mr Smiles: "Why doesn't Rav Matisyahu Solomon of Lakewood come to Yeshiva at least once a year, or why doesn't Yeshiva sponsor a Shabbat at Lakewood experience? Why not have an Agudah shabbaton once a year?"
The last letter by Mr. Lowi, I think misses the valid points made by the original column and basically states that, "It's their party and they can do what they want." That is true but that doesn't mean that the columnist wasn't accurate in his perceptions.
Agudah does not live up to its stated image of being an umbrella for all Torah observers. It only pays lip service to it and denies YU Rosh Yeshiva the opportunity to address the vast audience which included many YU Alumni. By merely "showcasing" a couple of YU Rosh Yeshivas at the back of the dais one cannot claim pluralism. To deny them the lectern is to deny the validity of their Hashkafos. There is no sense of universal Orthodox Elu v'Elu. There is only a partial sense of it. The display of inclusiveness precludes any MO type Hashkafos. The message was clear: "Litvishe Yeshivos, OK... Chasidim, OK... TIDE OK... Torah u-Madda. Pasul! "OK, we'll let you come, we'll even let you sit at the table, but that's it".
As for criticism by Mr. Lowi of the original columnist of over-emphasis on the holocaust, once again the letter writer misses the point. His statement that there is a "lack of understanding by young people today to understand what was lost" is inappropriate with respect to the Siyum. This event was not about what was lost, but what has been accomplished in our time.
I believe that a Siyum HaShas which is an event of Simcha should not be co-mingled with a tragedy like the Holocaust. It would have been one thing to mention it in passing briefly ala the breaking of a glass after a Chupah reminding us of the Churban Bais HaMikdash. But dedicating the entire event as a memorial and devoting an entire speech to it by one of the main speakers is akin to having someone making a lengthy speech about the Churban Bais HaMikdash at a wedding. Both are inappropriate.
No one is more sensitive to the Holocaust than I am. My parents were both survivors. To me the lack of uniting with the rest of Klal Yisrael, observant or not, on this issue and instead choosing your own venue for a Zikaron is divisive rather than uniting. I have no idea why Gedloim in the seventies were Maskim to dedicate a Simcha of massive proportions to one of the saddest events in Jewish history except perhaps they felt the need to do something in light of the legitimate criticism they were getting from Frum holocaust survivors in their midst for never addressing the issue or having any public event to memorialize the holocaust. The criticism was correct. The response was not.
Others may disagree but I remain unconvinced. In my humble opinion the Holocaust as a theme is as inappropriate at a Siyum HaShas as it is at a wedding.
Rabbi Harry Maryles
Hebrew Theological College '72.
Chicago, Illinois
Dear Sir:
Thank you to Etan Bednarsh for putting into words troubling thoughts that I too felt as I attended a siyum in Jerusalem a month ago. I too searched for "my gedolim" on the dais, only to be frustrated at their absence. I too wondered at the preponderance of Holocaust speeches, and the absence - complete absence - of any mention of over 1000 Jews being killed in the much more recent Arab assault of the past few years, nor of 8000 Jews about to be thrown out of their homes. The siyum here could have been a true unifying moment of joy, and there were joyful moments of singing and dancing. But as Mr. Bednarsh points out, the organizers, both here, and apparently in America, have a long way to go before the achieve true unity at their siyum. My hope is that constructive criticism such as Mr. Bednarsh's will in fact be read, and internalized, and that we will see an improvement at the end of the current cycle in seven years.
Samuel P. Zimmerman
Nof Ayalon, Israel
YC '81, BRGS RIETS '84
*******
The Pope
Dear Sir:
As the son of one Holocaust survivor, and as someone raised in an Orthodox Jewish household, it would have seemed inconceivable that I would one day truly mourn the passing of a Pope. That day came yesterday. The courage and leadership that Pope John Paul II displayed in so many aspects of his tenure were most memorable to me in his brave steps toward an ultimate reconciliation and forgiveness to the Jewish people. I will never forget the evening news, watching him arrive on the tarmac in Israel, and hearing the Israeli military orchestra strike up the Vatican anthem and the Hatikva; tears welled in my eyes. If even some of the world's political leaders displayed a fraction of his dedication to noble values, we would live in a much better world.
Allen Roth
YH '68, YC '72
********
Disengagement and Halakha
Dear Sir:
In respect to the assertions of Rabbis Blau, Lamm and Charlop that their panel dealt with only halakhic issues; I find it difficult to understand their conclusions regarding disobeying orders. The only relevant halakhic aspects relating to IDF service and orders per se would be that of Milhemet Mitzvah or Milhemet Reshut. Milhemet Reshut does not apply today; thus IDF service constitutes service in an army engaged in Milhemet Mitzvah. As such this mitzvah is incumbent upon every Jew - irrespective of residence in Israel or not. However, instead of issuing a call to their students to immediately join the IDF for a term of service and fulfill this mitzvah, the above Rabbis will dictate to those who have already done so what our religious obligations are.
My only conclusion can be that they view the issue of IDF service as not one of a Milhememt Mitzva but rather simply the obligation of an Israeli citizen with no halakhic ramifications to the service per se. As such, orders received within the context of IDF service need to be examined under Israeli Law and Israeli Military Law. Both REQUIRE a soldier to disobey a blatantly illegal order. It is not an issue of "taste".
Most IDF soldiers are not volunteers - they are drafted and deprived of various constitutional rights during their army service. As such the sensitivity to illegal orders needs to be even higher than in a paid "professional" army, and the orders need to balance out the constitutional liberties of which the soldier is deprived. Defense of the land might be a worthy enough cause under Israel's Basic Laws to justify the deprivation of civil rights of the soldier. Expulsion of residents from their homes would best be left to professional or international bodies, rather than drafted soldiers. It is the forcing of these soldiers to engage in this act that will destroy the army from within - not disobeying orders.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that the current evacuation law violates many more area of halakha, beyond that or Yishuv Haaretz and Lo T'chanem. These areas of halakha were not examined by the panel, which focused entirely on the issue of Yishuv Haaretz and Lo T'Chanem. A Rosh Kollel at the Kollel in K'far Darom enumerated a list of at least 18 additional Torah commandments that the Evacuation Law violates beyond the above two. Furthermore, the evacuation law violates significant civil rights of the residents, businesses and institutions to be expelled (if one were to simply accept the law as Dina D'Malchuta Dina). Any soldier with a Jewish - or even simply human - conscience will avoid being involved in this endeavor.
I would not venture to engage the above Rabbis - whom I would honor with the title Rebbe - in a halakhic debate. However, the halakhic and legal issues at hand are certainly more complicated than the limited perspective presented at the panel discussion. Personally, I have notified my reserve unit (as well as IDF human resources and the chief of staff's office) that I will NOT be reporting for scheduled reserve duty after Pesach, in light of many of the issues mentioned above. I am willing to accept the ramifications of my action. It is probably the most Jewish Zionist act I have undertaken since the date of my aliyah. I sincerely hope (and believe) that there are thousands of other citizens such as myself who will do what is necessary to save the IDF from itself and from the political echelons that have sullied its mission - the defense of the land and it's inhabitants (also explicitly noted in Israeli law).
Avraham Ben-Tzvi (Husarsky)
YC 1992; BA Economics
Bachelor of Law (Candidate) Sha'arei Mishpat College of Law
Dear Sir:
Rabbis Lamm, Charlop, and Blau are entitled to their opinion, a da'at yahid [minority opinion]. However, it is wrong for Rabbi Blau to imply that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik ZT"L would have agreed with him. Having been privileged to know the Rav ZT"L, I sincerely believe that he would have campaigned forcefully and effectively against the uprooting of Jews from their homes in Eretz Yisrael. "Chaval Al DeAvdin VeLo Mishtakchin." "Zechuso Yagen Aleinu VeAl Kal Yisrael."
Respectfully,
Avraham Yaakov Rokach
Chicago, IL
Dear Sir:
Arutz Sheva published a report of a panel discussion held at Yeshiva University concerning the halakhic aspects of the intended giveaway of Jewish Land to the PLO. Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, Chancellor of the university, propounded the halakhic view that the law of the land must be obeyed, even if we disagree with it. Thus he, and his esteemed associates, clearly stated that halakha requires police and soldiers to follow orders to throw Jews out of their homes, and that the evacuees themselves must comply with their expulsion.
Rabbi Lamm explained that rabbis are not qualified to make military or political decisions, and thus his position was based purely on halakha. He mentioned that King Solomon gave Jewish land to Hiram as a reward for his help in supplying materials to build the Temple. Thus a King has the right to give away Jewish land as he wishes.
While Rabbi Lamm may well have good intentions, and while he made a noble effort to find Jewish sources to justify his opinion, clearly he is mistaken. Even were Ariel Sharon King of Israel (and maybe he even thinks that he is), that does not give him the right to give away Jewish Land to our enemies. Hiram was not an enemy of the Jewish people. One needn't be a military expert nor a political insider to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that retreating from an enemy who seeks your destruction, who is currently attacking your civilian population, and who has not surrendered to you, will not improve the security of the country. On the contrary. We have clear evidence from military and political leaders that surrendering Gaza to the PLO will endanger Israel.
While it certainly is true that we must obey the law of the Land, that mitzvah is not an absolute, above all other mitzvoth. There are times when the law of the Land contravenes Torah Law and even democracy. This dastardly expulsion plan was not made in a democratic fashion. It was arbitrarily concocted by our prime minister, in contravention of the will of his own party and the platform upon which he was elected. It was railroaded through the government and the Knesset by firing ministers and bribing others. Were Rabbi Lamm a little more sensitive to the real issues we are facing here he would not have made some of the comments which implied that Jews who live in Judea Samaria and Gaza are defying their own government by making the mitzvah to settle the Land more important than life itself. First of all it was the government of Israel who encouraged Jews to live in these areas. Second, it is a mitzvah to fight to keep the Land which is already under our possession!
Thirdly whatever danger might exist by virtue of the fact that Jews live in Gaza, is infinitely less than the danger which will face the entire country were they not living there.
Like it or not we are, indeed, in a state of war with the PLO. No general, in the history of warfare, ever waged a war by submitting to a less powerful enemy. One needn't be a rabbi or a general to know, without a doubt, that the only way to deal with the likes of the PLO is to completely destroy them. That is a halakhic opinion which would take courage for any rabbi to issue, but it is Jewish Law.
Gary M. Cooperberg
Kiryat Arba, Israel
[Editor's Note: Arutz Sheva (www.israelnatioanalnews.com) ran a story using The Commentator's reporting about the "Disengagement and Halakha" forum sponsored by the Israel Club last month. However, rather than reprint the article in its entirety, Arutz Sheva chose to create their own article using The Commentator's reporting. Though The Commentator was appropriately credited with original reporting, we believe the format in which the article appeared distorted accurate coverage of the event.]
Schiavo's Will
Dear Sir:
In his article entitled, "Just Write a Will, Will Ya?" Mr. Menachem Wecker discussed several points that are factually and medically incorrect, while raising other issues that I found to be philosophically inappropriate. I am saddened to realize that a student of Yeshiva University would succumb so readily to the pressures and fallacies of the Western culture and discard the value that each soul carries before G-d.
Mr. Wecker states in the beginning of his article, a "woman who has been dead for 15 years" and goes on to maintain that in this case, we are keeping the "dead 'alive'" through a feeding tube. These comments destroy the complete credibility of his article, because Terry Schiavo, in her persistent vegetative state, was not dead, medically or religiously. Her heart and other organs were physiologically independent and in perfect working condition. Mrs. Schiavo was diagnosed as having brain damage not being brain dead.
Mr. Wecker tactfully continues by taking the liberty of stating Schiavo is living uselessly at taxpayer's expenses. This comment brings back the old Spartan ideal of leaving the old and the sickly - the worthless people- on mountain tops to die, so they will not become an affliction on the "healthy" and "normal" community. Even worse, this reawakens the notion brought on by Adolph Hitler, that the world must be rid of all imperfection.
I believe the validity of this article is shaken by such comments posited by Mr. Wecker as, "it is pointless to keep someone alive if they cannot perform such basic functions in life as seeing, hearing and most importantly, feeling", but then goes on to say that we should not force people to remain alive if they are in "intense pain, as they usually are". This is a clear contradiction, as Mr. Wecker stated in previous paragraphs, "Schiavo and people in her situation don't feel pain". Please, Mr. Wecker, if you desire to have your article taken seriously, you must present cogent arguments and positions that are maintained consistently.
Mr. Wecker writes that he personally cannot think of anything more unpleasant than living in a persistent vegetative state. The point he makes of how we react to our given circumstances, is subtle and extremely dangerous. I will not argue that life in a vegetative state is pleasant, but the idea of only living or acting when things are pleasurable is a very modern idea, only recently adopted by Western Culture. Life is not always what we want or hope for. Triumph in life has to do with our attitude and actions toward what our lot in life is. The Schindlers, Mrs. Schiavo's parents, took this tragic situation and attempted to move on in the best way they knew how, by guarding and caring for what they believe was their precious gift- their daughter.
The main issue boils down to one fundamental question. When have we, as human beings, received the right and privilege to establish someone's intrinsic worth? After all, if we agree to follow Mr. Wecker's later comment that we have to trust in G-d and that He will care for our family and loved ones; we should trust Him to decide when Mrs. Schiavo and anyone in any sort of terminal illness or vegetative state should die. As the human race, we have no right to decide when a life is inconvenient or burdensome. Maybe we need to do some serious introspection at this time and decide what it is about people with developmental, cognitive and physical disabilities that make us so uncomfortable, to the point that we could not only murder them but believe we are justified in doing so. Starvation, as in Mrs. Schiavo's case, was complete and total murder.
As human beings, I believe we need to realize time is not an entity of its own, but a creation formed and continuously maintained by an Omnipotent and Infinite Creator. We are, in fact, not in control of our ultimate destiny, and we will one day have to answer to a higher Being. It is time we as Jews removed the pervasive and insidious Western ideologies from our minds and hearts. These ideals have saturated our beliefs to such an extent that we have lost the true meaning and inherent value of life. Our worth is not defined by our physical output; one can never know the true extent of their importance in both the physical and spiritual worlds. It is our faith that teaches us that all souls have infinite value before G-d.
Alana Tinman
SCW '06